Mark Cooley is an interdisciplinary artist interested in exploring the intersections of art, activism and institutional critique in a variety of contexts. Subjects of particular interest are U.S. foreign policy, corporate culture, and the political economy of new technologies. Recently, Mark has focused his attention on food production and consumption and the ways in which artists may mediate in these processes.

The dictionary highlights the terminology of fear, security and war that has permeated American English post 9-11. It includes 68 new terms i.e. Preparedness and Freedom Fries as well as terms that have recently been redefined i.e. Torture.

The dictionary also has an interactive dimension. 58 terms are left undefined for the reader to pencil in their own definition. Furthermore, readers are invited to submit their additions to the institute for a possible inclusion in the 2nd edition.

a huge balloon, tied to a carâ��s vent-pipe, depicting the amount of exhaust emissions a car releases a day.

the "bursting earth" project is similar, but more dynamic. activists attach world globe balloons on exhaust pipes of cars in Berlin. the exhaust gas inflates the ballons. after the message becomes readable, there is a big "bang".

Aesthetics and Politics

REALIZING THE IMPOSSIBLE: ART AGAINST AUTHORITY by Josh MacPhee, Erik Reuland, editors :: There has always been a close relationship between aesthetics and politics in anti-authoritarian social movements. And those movements have in turn influenced many of the last century's most important art movements, including cubism, Dada, post-impressionism, abstract expressionism, surrealism, Fluxus, Situationism, and punk. Today, the movement against corporate globalization, with its creative acts of resistance, has brought anti-authoritarian politics into the forefront. This sprawling, inclusive collection explores this vibrant history, with topics ranging from turn-of-the-century French cartoonists to modern Indonesian printmaking, from people rolling giant balls of trash down Chicago streets to massive squatted urban villages and renegade playgrounds in Denmark, from stencil artists of Argentina to radical video collectives of the US and Mexico. Lots of illustrations, all b&w.;

-ei shouldn't have to say that my presence or lack of presence in the artbase didn't have anything to do with my comments, but for you eryk i guess that explanation is needed. nice way of avoiding the content of my comments - shoot the messenger - kill the messege. maybe i should leave the discussion to heavyweights like you eryk. leave it to you to turn everything into a juvenile cock fight. the forum is yours -e - Strap it on and Go for it. the end.

> Eryk Salvaggio wrote:> Someone was left out of the Artbase?> > -e.> > > > ----- Original Message -----> From: "mark cooley" <mgc868f@smsu.edu>> To: <list@rhizome.org>> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:19 PM> Subject: Re: Re[2]: RHIZOME_RAW: finding net.art in the rhizome> artbase> > > > just a comment on voting as part of the rhizome filtering process.> >> > let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists> represented> in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met> with> whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is> the> artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are> chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big> responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art> history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out,> as with> the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists.> assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of> voting> necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing> into a> bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness> of> online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with> a few> editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more> people.> to the extent that rhizome works within a !> > system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling> competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should> be -> is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what> and how> content is archived (how history gets made)?> >> > Roman Minaev wrote:> >> > > And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?> > > The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.> > >> > +> > -> post: list@rhizome.org> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members> > +> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > Membership Agreement available online at> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php> >>

let me preface that I have respect for the wishes of artists represented in the artbase and feel that there individual interests should be met with whatever structure this whole thing takes. i'm wondering though, is the artbase not already a competition? artists submit and some artists are chosen over others. editors of sites like rhizome share a big responsibility in that they are in fact writing future chapters of art history with their decisions. some are included, some are left out, as with the writing of all history, depending on the values of the archivists. assuming all of this, my question is - why does the inclusion of voting necessarily cheapen things and automatically make this whole thing into a bad reality tv show? given the rhetoric around the supposed openness of online communities, it seems ironic that some would rather stick with a few editors judgements than open up the decision making process to more people. to the extent that rhizome works within a system of cultural capital it is already a competition (of unwilling competitors). if we assume this, as i do, the question perhaps should be - is it better to have more or less people making decisions about what and how content is archived (how history gets made)?

Roman Minaev wrote:

> And how about top 5, bottom 5 and middle 5?> The most important thing trashconnection would appear somewere.>

just wanted to throw something in... a response to... > If a spiritual world exists, but I don't allow for its existence, I will wrongly attribute spiritual influences to material causes. If a spiritual world doesn't exist, but I believe one does, I will wrongly attribute material influences to spiritual causes.< Curt. There is, of course, the third position (and many others besides) that allows for both the existence of "a spiritual world" and a materialist way of finding social relations meaningful. I don't think this should be a chicken OR egg thing. It is possible to believe the existence of an unattainable (at least while we are in our bodies here on earth) transcendence and a view that human social relations always work within political/economic contexts. Personally, I have a lot of trouble attributing material situations with universal/transcendent causes, simply because every situation takes place within relations of power in society... unless you say that power relations are somehow divinely sanctioned... and I'm not about to go there. One can believe in the existence of a spirit world and, at the same time, have no faith in it.

Eryk Salvaggio wrote:

> (weirdest change of subject I've seen in a while)> > Curt;> > The problem with a lot of moderate views of Marxism and Socialism is> that> they react to a very base element of spirituality (which many people> do).> This is really true with any secular movement. The interesting thing> though> is that revolution serves the same function that religion might.> > Erich Fromm suggested that there were two types of religion-> humanistic and> totalitarian; and that totalitarian religion is an escape from> freedom,> while humanistic religion allows an individual to look at their own> freedom> and not be afraid, but to embrace freedom for positive action. I think> a lot> of secular movements, like Marxism, look at totalitarian religion and> mistake it for *all* religion- certainly Marx did. Totalitarian> Religion is> the opiate of the masses, indeed- but humanistic religion shares its> aims> with Marxism: Liberation of the human spirit. The underlying> disagreement is> unfortunate for both.> > Humanistic religion sees God as an idealized state for humanity to> struggle> towards; Revolution is about the struggle for an idealized state. God> is> within each follower and allows each individual to reach their> greatest> potential in Religion; just substitute "revolution" with "god" and you> get> the same thing. The key difference, from what I see, is that I see far> more> happy religious people than happy revolutionaries. Revolutionaries> fall so> quickly into totalitarianism; it is hard to turn down the power over> others> that comes with equating oneself with a state of righteousness, be it> political or spiritual.> > Situatationists, Dadaists, and your beloved Conceptual artists; at> their> best, take the ideas that Fromm took as well- that the evidence of> liberation is in spontaneity; which is a different realization from> much of> religion, though much-abused Zen thought lends itself towards> understanding> enlightenment as spontaneity as well. Have you read Meister Eckhart?> He's a> Christian Mystic from the 13th century, and a lot of the translations> I have> of him are decidedly Marxist. Here's his poem, written here in prose> form to> emphasize its Marxist nature:> > "Commerce is supported by keeping the individual at odds with himself> and> others, by making us want more than we need, and offering credit to> buy what> refined senses do not want. The masses become shackled, I see how> their eyes> weep and are desperate- of course they feel desperate- for some remedy> that> a poor soul feels needs to be bought. I find nothing more offensive> than a> god who would condemn human instincts in us that time in all its> wonder have> made perfect. I find nothing more destructive to the well being of> life than> to support a god who makes you feel unworthy and in debt to it. I> imagine> erecting churches to such a strange god will assure the endless wars> that> commerce loves."> > It strikes me as interesting that anyone with religious views would> hold> such a strong disregard to conceptual art, when I have always seen it> as an> extension of religion. I get in trouble for using the word "mysticism"> in a> secular way now and then, so maybe my pov hasn't allowed me to see how> someone who is *truly* religious could find it offensive. Do you think> conceptual art is challenging the position of actual faith in God? (I> mean> this in all sincerity- it has always been my understanding that> conceptual> art ala Cage, Beuys, Tzara and Duchamp is all about mysticism- I know> Cage> and Tzara say it pretty explicitly.)> > -e.> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----> From: "curt cloninger" <curt@lab404.com>> To: <list@rhizome.org>> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:05 PM> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Web Art in> the> Whitney Biennial?> > > > Michael Szpakowski wrote:> >> > > All marxism at bottom asserts is that ideas don't come> > > from nowhere but arise out of how we reproduce> > > ourselves and the necessities of life - food,> > > clothing, shelter.> > > I'm not trying to fluffify it here - the consequences> > > of these ideas are far reaching, but the ideas> > > themselves are pretty straightforward.> > > It's indubitably the case that without the things> > > above listed then> > > "love and intimacy and thanksgiving and> > > creativity and celebration and barbaric yawpin'"> > > which I too value in all their glorious human> > > particularity and enormously varied manifestations> > > throughout history, would not occur.> >> > Hi Michael,> >> > I'm not so sure that's true. There is no denying that> reproduction,> food, clothing, and shelter are ever with us on this earth, but I> don't know> whether their persistent presence makes them the underlying (or even> prime)> cause for every other thing we do. I've always had two eyeballs in my> head,> but not all my actions derive from that fact.> >> > If a spiritual world exists, but I don't allow for its existence, I> will> wrongly attribute spiritual influences to material causes. If a> spiritual> world doesn't exist, but I believe one does, I will wrongly attribute> material influences to spiritual causes.> >> > I believe a spiritual world exists.> >> > local mileage may vary,> > curt> > +> > -> post: list@rhizome.org> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members> > +> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> > Membership Agreement available online at> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php> >>

warProductwar is a site for reflection and meditation on U.S. war culture. The project will develop over time as a series of installations through which participant/viewers may re-view cultural representations in possibly revealing (or at least troubling) juxtapositions. Through the course of the project, warproductwar will remain in a state of flux. Broken links and loose ends should be expected. Additions, deletions, and changes are continually pondered and infrequently enacted.

FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted (im)material. Use of copyrighted (im)material has not been specifically authorized by copyright owners. Previously published content is recontextualized and made available @ war-product-war.com in efforts to promote active re-readings of U.S. visual culture in reference to war, alienation, and the global economy. The function of this site constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law.

NOTICE: Through the course of the project war-product-war.com will remain in a state of flux. Broken links and loose ends should be expected. Additions, deletions, and changes are continually pondered and infrequently enacted.